Received: from localhost (pluto.hub.org [200.46.204.4]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721C29FA3D0 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:14:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.4]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23470-08 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:14:07 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from momjian.us (momjian.us [70.90.9.53]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CE09FA465 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:14:07 -0400 (AST) Received: (from bruce@localhost) by momjian.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id kAMIE6Y08930; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:14:06 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200611221814.kAMIE6Y08930@momjian.us> Subject: Re: Replication Docs In-Reply-To: <45649100.4040505@bluegap.ch> To: Markus Schiltknecht Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:14:06 -0500 (EST) CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, emmanuel.cecchet@continuent.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL123] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/76 X-Sequence-Number: 3910 Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > Hi, > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > OK, it is two separate entries now: > > > > http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/high-availability.html > > Yes, that's fine with me. Good. > > Uh, good point. The title is now "Statement-Based Replication > > Middleware". That doesn't say multi-master, but it doesn't say > > master/slave either. The Sequoia PDF you sent me is very detailed: > > > > http://www.continuent.org/uploads/sequoia/Resources/2006-08-15Cecchet_ApacheConAsia2006.pdf > > > > I think we are back to the issue of classification. We have traditional > > master/slave as slony, and multi-master as perhaps pgcluster, and lots > > in between. I am thinking pgpool and sequoia fit in there. I have > > added Sequoia to the Statement-Based Replication Middleware section. > > I'll look into that shortly, but I think Emmanuel can better categorize > sequoia, I've CCed him. I'd certainly categorize it as Multi Master > Replication (like pgpool, only that it's a poor implementation). OK, let's see what they say. Right now, middleware is a separate section. > Good, that sounds better for me. > > There's only a typo at the very end: > > "..conflict resolution rules. rules." OK, fixed, thanks. > > Uh, if the data isn't partitioned, what value is there to hitting > > multiple servers, for single query? I am confused. > > Right, makes only sense for complex queries, i.e. when having multiple > seq scans and/or joins. The executor would have to be super clever for > such things to happen. Just forget about my comment. Oh, I see, splitting I/O load even with multiple copies --- interesting, but seems too far out for this documentation, as you suggested above. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +